July 23, 2025 • 22 mins
Another 1-dollar deal, another big shakeup for the New Zealand media industry.
Sky TV has snapped up broadcast network Three and its associated platforms, and will have control of them by August 1st.
It sees the exit of another international player in the local media landscape, with Warner Bros Discovery retreating a year after it closed down Three’s news outfit, Newshub.
So what does this new media merger mean for the industry – and could this change how you watch the All Blacks?
Today on The Front Page, host of The Fold podcast for The Spinoff, Duncan Grieve, is with us to discuss how this shakes things up.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kyoda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Another one
dollar deal and another big shakeup for the New Zealand
media industry. SkyTV has snapped up broadcast Network three and
(00:28):
its associated platforms and we'll have control of them by August. First.
It sees the exit of another international player in the
local media landscape, with Warner Brothers Discovery retreating a year
after it closed down three's news outfit news Hub. So
what does this new media merger mean for the industry
(00:52):
and could this change how you watch the All Blacks Today?
On the Front Page, host of the Fold podcast asked
for the spin off, Duncan Grieve is with us to
discuss how this shakes things up. Duncan, how shocked were
you about this news?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I don't think shocked is the right word, because there'd
been a sort of a slow drifting together and rising
the the idea for a while, but a lot of
things get floated around and a rumored that never actually
come to anything. So not shocked, but suddenly surprised and
just excited because I think this industry needs some dynamism
(01:38):
and needs a level of competition, and three in Sky
just makes sense together. Sometimes you see things come together
and you're like, I don't know about that, but this
you're like, okay, this makes sense and and so what
it does for the the sort of energy, the dynamism,
the level of competition within the industry that was that
was the kind of the big thing that kind of
(01:59):
just jumped out to everyone as soon as it happened.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So when you say, come on competition in the industry,
you meaning TV and Z.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
I think, well, look, I haven't spending twenty on TV
and Z yet, and I'm sure, well, I'm sure if
I did, they would say that, no, this is great.
We welcome competition. I know the line. That's kind of
why sometimes I don't even want to ask, but I
think fundamentally, TV and Z has always been number one.
It's always had a huge share of audience. But more
(02:27):
than that, it's even had a bigger share of the
advertising market. It makes roughly three hundred million dollars in
advertising revenue versus around one hundred for three. But Sky
is sort of rapidly gaining there. It's put a lot
of emphasis on there. And if you just dropped one
hundred million dollars in ad revenue. Not to make it
all about the commercial or about the ads, but it
(02:50):
just puts them on a much more even footing. And fundamentally,
I do think that I don't think this is any
kind of existing challenge for TV ins there. But what
we do have here is too much more balanced than
well matched opponents in the local TV market. Then we've
(03:11):
probably hadn't quite some time.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Right, So a one dollar deal or is it really
I mean, they're not actually buying like people will see
that and then it's I'm got a couple of bunks.
I could have brought that up to five on trade me,
what does it actually mean when a company buys another
company for a dollar?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Say, as far as I know, there is an actual
transaction you do walk into and it's a bit of
a photo op you hand over the dollar coin kind
of thing. But obviously that is a symbolic gesture. It
says we will take on the company as a going concern,
including and it was the major thing all of the
(03:46):
ongoing contracts. You know that three has been a loss
making enterprise viewed in isolation for quite some time. That said,
people have always thought it could be more than it
currently is. It's why it's for what I understand to
be US twenty million less than five years ago. But
it's kind of been a bit of an orphane like
(04:10):
it had been with a radio company. It's never quite
had the scale to properly compete with a tvN's head.
And now that it's next to this subscription beast with
a million customers, that is Sky a real powerhouse and sports.
Sky already spends more money on content than anyone else.
(04:30):
It's now just got another place to look at to
put it and a place that people are used to
spending a lot of time with them that they really love.
So it's a whole new canvas for Sky to put
its content on and to kind of, you know, sort
of see what free to wear at real scale looks
like for that company.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So if we wanted to get into it, why does
Sky want three? We know that three or why three
would want Sky? But why the other way around?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Tie by on your earlier question, Like they could have
got more money for it than a dollar, but they
wanted it to go to a good home that can
be like a corporate reputation thing. Sometimes it's actually they
just really do care about the people, and they still
you know, WBD still operate in this market. They've still
got a production house here, they've still got the HBO
Max brand, which is currently also sort of effectively leased
(05:27):
to Sky. So they want to be part of the
industry here. So just selling it to whoever is the
highest bo that are irrespective with their responsible owner's that's
a different thing. So I don't think that they'd want
to be in that business. In terms of why Sky
would want it, Sky for the longest time was a
(05:52):
sort of castle on the hill. It was wasn't really
part of the New Zealand media industry. It had a
totally different business model, which was, you know, subscriptions and advertising.
It just wasn't a big part of what it did.
It almost didn't need to be. It was so profitable
without it that it and part of what you were
paying for was a different kind of TV, you know,
(06:14):
that TV which had much less ads on it than
the terrestrial free to air TV that you were used to.
Now the game has changed. Everyone from Netflix on down
is doing not just subscriptions but ads as well, and
so for Sky, which has already got a great subscription business,
it's already trying really harder in ads and has been
(06:38):
making progress there when a lot of people are flat
to declining. This just opens up a whole lot more
audience and one hundred million dollars worth of advertising revenue
that it can plug into its subscription and content portfolio.
So it's kind of a no brainer for them.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So they come on board, Sky does, and they will
presumably do a whole bunch of cost cutting as they
normally do. You know, there'll be some back office functions
at free that Sky's already doing.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
All that sort of stuff will happen.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
You'd imagine that kind of thing. I mean, we're driving
in there. But they're saying that this would result in
a sustainable ebit uplift of at least ten million dollars
from financial year twenty twenty eight, So they are looking
quite some years out before they're really really seeing the
games of this. But I guess if you're thinking in
a bigger sense that sports rights play a big part
in how people make money out of broadcasting, and if
(07:33):
you've got a free to wear option that you can
offer cut TV ins out, that's the one for you. Later, Yeah, interesting, is.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
It all about rugby? When it comes to Sky. I
mean I've had to chat with some people around the office.
They say, why do you still subscribe to Sky back home?
We call something similar like foxtail. Why would you still
have a subscription to foxtail when you've got all of
these other options And one of the main things is
sport Rugby International rights for Football or AFL pops up
(08:06):
on the screen sometimes does Sky Sport nine or something?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
What happens to.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
All of those like is that going to be a
real game changer for them?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Live sport is the last great driver of TV audiences.
You know, you can get hits here and there, and
there are lots of there are lots of properties which
still work. But you know, in the US, for example,
something like ninety of the one hundred biggest TV audiences
(08:36):
of the year are NFL games live NFL games, and
so absolutely for Sky. Well it's not the only thing.
Rugby cricket, you know, these kind of properties are a
huge part of what makes Sky a very sticky product
for the person paying the bill. There's no other way
to see it, and certainly not not a good way
(08:58):
to see it live. And that's where I think from
a looking at the competitive dynamic with TV and Z
where it gets really interesting because TV and z's got
a big newsroom, you know, three famously shut its down
its newsroom down last year. It's got a really good
library of New Zealand content and ongoing shows and personalities
(09:21):
that people are really familiar with. But what it doesn't
have as much of as sport. And in fact that
what sport it has. For example, the New Zealand cricket
contract is actually going from TV and Z to Sky,
so you're going to see a really big change in
what is available. Two three, it's got all the Sky
(09:45):
Sports contracts. I want to want to give too much
away for free because then people wouldn't subscribed to Sky.
But certainly it can put live sport there or even
delayed sport, and that's a real differentiator from TV and Z.
But it also has, like the HBO Max contract, it
has a whole bunch of really premium TV. Again, probably
won't be a first run there, but it can play
it out, you know, weeks or months later, and what
(10:07):
the channel is to consumers has the potential to change
in quite a positive way. That will give TV and Z.
It's a real well resourced and differentiated competitor in a
way that probably has never dealt with before.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What's the point of media companies merging now? I can't
think of any really good examples off the top of
my head, but I'm thinking, like Disney owns I don't
know everything now, like Fox and stuff? Right, and or
is that the other one? I mean, this is asking you, ESBN,
I mean, and then you've got the Fox side of things.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
They own They own Fox now, they own Fox, not
Fox News, but Fox the twentieth century, fix century TV
and movie studio business.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah. Yah, So it's kind of like a media company.
I kind of think of it visually rolling along and
just collecting up all of these smaller companies to a
point where it's just this huge blob of content and
news and money. An is there any point being one
of those smaller blobs on the side anymore?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
I think if you're a small blob, I love this.
While you're describing this. The hard thing is that there
are a lot of giant blobs around, and as big
as we think of some company like Disney, you know
there are They're right next to Netflix, which is now
a significantly bigger blob at least from a market capitalization standpoint.
(11:40):
But even Netflix, which is like a five hundred billion
US company, it's looking up at Google, which is you know,
YouTube is bigger again in terms of audiences, and then
it has all its other businesses. Meta has a huge
share of the sort of social video market. So the
market for people's tension is dominated by a few enormous
(12:04):
players and they have huge structural advantages. The likes of
YouTube and Metha. They don't buy content advance, that don't
commission it. It just sort of comes to them, and
that's a huge structural advantage for their YouTube actually shares
a lot with its creators, which Meta doesn't do. But
(12:25):
there is just a scale and a business model thing
there that is really hard to beat. So if you're
a small player bundling a lot of different types of
business together because some of the back office, whether it's finance,
hr technology, that kind of stuff, the more channels and
audiences that you can spread that across your head sales,
(12:47):
the more you can spread those things across, the better
your little blob has a chance of surviving against the
really big blobs that are headquartered in the Silicon Valley
have their non and all finance has run out of
Dublin and pay text precisely nowhere for the most part.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
In terms of media companies like this merging, what does
it mean for creatives? I did see that Sky TV
CEO say that they are interested in more local content,
and that's obviously something that they've heard from all the
comments and stuff regarding Netflix taking our dime and like
you know, the people have been saying Netflix should say,
pay a tax so we can create more New Zealand content,
(13:29):
And that really stuck out to me from listening to
her about that.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Do you believe that it will lead to that?
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Well, I think if you think about content in a
very broad sense, Sky probably makes more local content than
anyone else because of the amount of sport that producers,
and then there's all the wrap around sports shows. We
don't tend to think about that, and the production sector,
which is where a lot of that sort of the
(13:55):
drums beating around Netflix's commissioning locally comes from. They don't
typically think about sports, but Sky screens and producers and
has hard working people go all over the country to
bring you NPC and and all kinds of different sports properties.
They also, you know, through New Zealand on air and
(14:18):
you know, through some commercial partners at ships make some
local content as well, but not nearly so much as
you know, the likes of TVNZ for example, Three has
massively pulled back from that itself. You know, it used
to have multiple news bulletins. Now it just has the one.
It doesn't make it itself. Stuff manufactures that for them,
(14:40):
So they have basically trenched to the point where they
said the only local content will make will either be
funded by new zeand on air or be commercially funded.
Whether that remains the case for the combined Sky three business,
I do think that's an open question. If you look
at you know, the battle of the big blobs again,
(15:02):
what's a differentiator for our local blobs? It is where
they are, it's and they can't go anywhere else. You know,
the likes of Sky and TV and Z are in
and of this country. And how do you signal that,
and how do you do you differentiate yourself and the
likes of you know, Disney Plus, Amazon, Prime Netflix. It
is actually with your local content. So that's the sort
(15:24):
of the upside too, and the argument for them them
commissioning more local shows in future.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
The three brand has always been seen as a bit
of a renegade. Hey, up against the corporate and very
serious TV Z. That's where you get serious things. And
when TV three, especially i'm thinking three News, came into
the play, it was much more fun. It was a bit,
you know, a bit out there. My producer actually told
(15:52):
me about this iconic footage of Blenda Todd taking the
Grim Reaper through the office when the network was in
its infancy.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It's the same reception that's been here since the beginning.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You've come about the jobs.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
The same reception that hosted host Belinda Todd along with
the Grim Reaper when TV three went into receivership.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
I'm too groad, Angy Morgan.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
You can have me for one thousand dollars a week,
plus all the land that was taken from my tribe.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
The receiver th on was just a month after Nightline launched.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We're just running with scissors with a hair on fire,
and no one expected anything of it, so.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
We did what we liked.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
And there have been so many owners over the years,
so much change at three. Do you think this deal
is going to bring some long term stability, not only
two three, but perhaps the wide media landscape.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah, I mean, I think that that renegade spirit of
three was very deliberately cultivated. It was a classic challenger
brand and and it hired personalities who had a particular
sense of fun and playfulness, and it was just so
well executed against that over its sort of first twenty
(17:11):
years or so, to the point where if you look
at some of the biggest names on TV and Z,
you know, the likes of Hillary Barry and John Campbell,
they were three lifers before they eventually made their way
across there. Not that they wanted to be a development
house for talent, but that's just sort of it shows
just how admired they were at that capacity. In terms
(17:35):
of how three has lived its whole life. It has
had huge amounts of debt, it's had reluctant owners, it's
had bankruptcies, and it's just kept on trucking. You know,
that's their understanding of the world is that way up there,
something weird's always happening, and you just got to do
(17:57):
your job, and so, you know, there was My understanding
is that TVNZ went and camped outside Flower Street, which
is only going to be their home for a matter
of a few days I think for three to sort
of get their reaction to this, and I'm like, you
should know that this is the most normal thing that's
(18:18):
happened to three from an ownership perspective, in probably its
entire existence, and so it will have I would have thought,
no impact on them, kind of emotionally, but equally if
you sort of step back a bit, it's obviously a
great day for them. You know, I think when you're
(18:39):
owned by a giant multinational, and especially when you're off
to the side of what their core business is, you know,
you should never really count your chickens. But when you're
owned by a publicly listed New Zealand media company, you're
part of the furniture that you're a really important asset
to them. And I think that for three Star, you know,
(19:04):
those who are left, you know, a lot of them
have gone by the wayside in recent years, but those
who are still there, who especially those have got a
kind of connection back to previous eras this this should
be an amazing moment for them because they're finally at
a place where they're sort of seen and valued and
have reason to believe that they can grow and prosper
(19:27):
and evolve. In a way that has been really hard
to imagine. For a lot of the last sort of
probably ten to fifteen years.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
In the past, TV and Z has poached some of
three's biggest hits. I've been told Home and Away is
probably the biggest, that was the lead in show for
the six PM news for a long time there. And
you've also seen they announce the other week that Graham
Norton is moving over to TV and Z. They even
took Broken Wood Mysteries from Sky did TV and zed.
(19:55):
So is this stronger media company perhaps going to put
up a lo a bit more of a fight.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Yeah, it's interesting some of those shows that you listed
weren't necessarily poached from three so much as Three either
deliberately or unintentionally botched the negotiation on them, and they
were real losses. You know, some of those, particularly Home
and Away were real tent poles of how they set
(20:24):
up their evening. And you know, also give TVNZ credit,
they knew how to behave in a competitive environment like
a really strong competitor. They still will be in this situation.
I think it's less about Three defending what it has
and it still has a lot, you know, David Lomas
is still a very beloved property for them. Meretithist Side
(20:46):
Australia regularly tops the ratings. Basically, comedy and reality TV
as locally made genres were largely driven stratgically buy three,
and while particularly the comedy side and some of the
(21:06):
reality side TVNS has picked up on it, they were
definitely fast followers rather than originators of that. And so yeah,
this absolutely a more robust company to sort of defend
what three has. But I think what's more instructive and
interesting about the dealer is if you just look at
the vast library that Sky has, truly it's one of
(21:29):
the best in the world. It might be the best
in the world just because we're a sort of small
market with less BATV operators across sports, across entertainment. What
it can do in terms of putting some of that,
a sampling of that on three and then using that
as the top of the funnel to say, if you
like that, there's a whole lot more where that came
(21:50):
from across s guy's properties, and then advertising that there
Once that it's all properly put together, strategically understood and executed,
that should be a pretty formidable machine for them sitting
aside the whole advertising piece of it, which is the
obvious stated justification too.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Thanks for joining us, Duncan.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Thank you so much for having me. I could talk
about this all day.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enziherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(22:39):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Kyoda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Another one
dollar deal and another big shakeup for the New Zealand
media industry. SkyTV has snapped up broadcast Network three and
(00:28):
its associated platforms and we'll have control of them by August. First.
It sees the exit of another international player in the
local media landscape, with Warner Brothers Discovery retreating a year
after it closed down three's news outfit news Hub. So
what does this new media merger mean for the industry
(00:52):
and could this change how you watch the All Blacks Today?
On the Front Page, host of the Fold podcast asked
for the spin off, Duncan Grieve is with us to
discuss how this shakes things up. Duncan, how shocked were
you about this news?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I don't think shocked is the right word, because there'd
been a sort of a slow drifting together and rising
the the idea for a while, but a lot of
things get floated around and a rumored that never actually
come to anything. So not shocked, but suddenly surprised and
just excited because I think this industry needs some dynamism
(01:38):
and needs a level of competition, and three in Sky
just makes sense together. Sometimes you see things come together
and you're like, I don't know about that, but this
you're like, okay, this makes sense and and so what
it does for the the sort of energy, the dynamism,
the level of competition within the industry that was that
was the kind of the big thing that kind of
(01:59):
just jumped out to everyone as soon as it happened.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So when you say, come on competition in the industry,
you meaning TV and Z.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
I think, well, look, I haven't spending twenty on TV
and Z yet, and I'm sure, well, I'm sure if
I did, they would say that, no, this is great.
We welcome competition. I know the line. That's kind of
why sometimes I don't even want to ask, but I
think fundamentally, TV and Z has always been number one.
It's always had a huge share of audience. But more
(02:27):
than that, it's even had a bigger share of the
advertising market. It makes roughly three hundred million dollars in
advertising revenue versus around one hundred for three. But Sky
is sort of rapidly gaining there. It's put a lot
of emphasis on there. And if you just dropped one
hundred million dollars in ad revenue. Not to make it
all about the commercial or about the ads, but it
(02:50):
just puts them on a much more even footing. And fundamentally,
I do think that I don't think this is any
kind of existing challenge for TV ins there. But what
we do have here is too much more balanced than
well matched opponents in the local TV market. Then we've
(03:11):
probably hadn't quite some time.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Right, So a one dollar deal or is it really
I mean, they're not actually buying like people will see
that and then it's I'm got a couple of bunks.
I could have brought that up to five on trade me,
what does it actually mean when a company buys another
company for a dollar?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Say, as far as I know, there is an actual
transaction you do walk into and it's a bit of
a photo op you hand over the dollar coin kind
of thing. But obviously that is a symbolic gesture. It
says we will take on the company as a going concern,
including and it was the major thing all of the
(03:46):
ongoing contracts. You know that three has been a loss
making enterprise viewed in isolation for quite some time. That said,
people have always thought it could be more than it
currently is. It's why it's for what I understand to
be US twenty million less than five years ago. But
it's kind of been a bit of an orphane like
(04:10):
it had been with a radio company. It's never quite
had the scale to properly compete with a tvN's head.
And now that it's next to this subscription beast with
a million customers, that is Sky a real powerhouse and sports.
Sky already spends more money on content than anyone else.
(04:30):
It's now just got another place to look at to
put it and a place that people are used to
spending a lot of time with them that they really love.
So it's a whole new canvas for Sky to put
its content on and to kind of, you know, sort
of see what free to wear at real scale looks
like for that company.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So if we wanted to get into it, why does
Sky want three? We know that three or why three
would want Sky? But why the other way around?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Tie by on your earlier question, Like they could have
got more money for it than a dollar, but they
wanted it to go to a good home that can
be like a corporate reputation thing. Sometimes it's actually they
just really do care about the people, and they still
you know, WBD still operate in this market. They've still
got a production house here, they've still got the HBO
Max brand, which is currently also sort of effectively leased
(05:27):
to Sky. So they want to be part of the
industry here. So just selling it to whoever is the
highest bo that are irrespective with their responsible owner's that's
a different thing. So I don't think that they'd want
to be in that business. In terms of why Sky
would want it, Sky for the longest time was a
(05:52):
sort of castle on the hill. It was wasn't really
part of the New Zealand media industry. It had a
totally different business model, which was, you know, subscriptions and advertising.
It just wasn't a big part of what it did.
It almost didn't need to be. It was so profitable
without it that it and part of what you were
paying for was a different kind of TV, you know,
(06:14):
that TV which had much less ads on it than
the terrestrial free to air TV that you were used to.
Now the game has changed. Everyone from Netflix on down
is doing not just subscriptions but ads as well, and
so for Sky, which has already got a great subscription business,
it's already trying really harder in ads and has been
(06:38):
making progress there when a lot of people are flat
to declining. This just opens up a whole lot more
audience and one hundred million dollars worth of advertising revenue
that it can plug into its subscription and content portfolio.
So it's kind of a no brainer for them.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So they come on board, Sky does, and they will
presumably do a whole bunch of cost cutting as they
normally do. You know, there'll be some back office functions
at free that Sky's already doing.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
All that sort of stuff will happen.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
You'd imagine that kind of thing. I mean, we're driving
in there. But they're saying that this would result in
a sustainable ebit uplift of at least ten million dollars
from financial year twenty twenty eight, So they are looking
quite some years out before they're really really seeing the
games of this. But I guess if you're thinking in
a bigger sense that sports rights play a big part
in how people make money out of broadcasting, and if
(07:33):
you've got a free to wear option that you can
offer cut TV ins out, that's the one for you. Later, Yeah, interesting, is.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
It all about rugby? When it comes to Sky. I
mean I've had to chat with some people around the office.
They say, why do you still subscribe to Sky back home?
We call something similar like foxtail. Why would you still
have a subscription to foxtail when you've got all of
these other options And one of the main things is
sport Rugby International rights for Football or AFL pops up
(08:06):
on the screen sometimes does Sky Sport nine or something?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
What happens to.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
All of those like is that going to be a
real game changer for them?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Live sport is the last great driver of TV audiences.
You know, you can get hits here and there, and
there are lots of there are lots of properties which
still work. But you know, in the US, for example,
something like ninety of the one hundred biggest TV audiences
(08:36):
of the year are NFL games live NFL games, and
so absolutely for Sky. Well it's not the only thing.
Rugby cricket, you know, these kind of properties are a
huge part of what makes Sky a very sticky product
for the person paying the bill. There's no other way
to see it, and certainly not not a good way
(08:58):
to see it live. And that's where I think from
a looking at the competitive dynamic with TV and Z
where it gets really interesting because TV and z's got
a big newsroom, you know, three famously shut its down
its newsroom down last year. It's got a really good
library of New Zealand content and ongoing shows and personalities
(09:21):
that people are really familiar with. But what it doesn't
have as much of as sport. And in fact that
what sport it has. For example, the New Zealand cricket
contract is actually going from TV and Z to Sky,
so you're going to see a really big change in
what is available. Two three, it's got all the Sky
(09:45):
Sports contracts. I want to want to give too much
away for free because then people wouldn't subscribed to Sky.
But certainly it can put live sport there or even
delayed sport, and that's a real differentiator from TV and Z.
But it also has, like the HBO Max contract, it
has a whole bunch of really premium TV. Again, probably
won't be a first run there, but it can play
it out, you know, weeks or months later, and what
(10:07):
the channel is to consumers has the potential to change
in quite a positive way. That will give TV and Z.
It's a real well resourced and differentiated competitor in a
way that probably has never dealt with before.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What's the point of media companies merging now? I can't
think of any really good examples off the top of
my head, but I'm thinking, like Disney owns I don't
know everything now, like Fox and stuff? Right, and or
is that the other one? I mean, this is asking you, ESBN,
I mean, and then you've got the Fox side of things.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
They own They own Fox now, they own Fox, not
Fox News, but Fox the twentieth century, fix century TV
and movie studio business.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah. Yah, So it's kind of like a media company.
I kind of think of it visually rolling along and
just collecting up all of these smaller companies to a
point where it's just this huge blob of content and
news and money. An is there any point being one
of those smaller blobs on the side anymore?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
I think if you're a small blob, I love this.
While you're describing this. The hard thing is that there
are a lot of giant blobs around, and as big
as we think of some company like Disney, you know
there are They're right next to Netflix, which is now
a significantly bigger blob at least from a market capitalization standpoint.
(11:40):
But even Netflix, which is like a five hundred billion
US company, it's looking up at Google, which is you know,
YouTube is bigger again in terms of audiences, and then
it has all its other businesses. Meta has a huge
share of the sort of social video market. So the
market for people's tension is dominated by a few enormous
(12:04):
players and they have huge structural advantages. The likes of
YouTube and Metha. They don't buy content advance, that don't
commission it. It just sort of comes to them, and
that's a huge structural advantage for their YouTube actually shares
a lot with its creators, which Meta doesn't do. But
(12:25):
there is just a scale and a business model thing
there that is really hard to beat. So if you're
a small player bundling a lot of different types of
business together because some of the back office, whether it's finance,
hr technology, that kind of stuff, the more channels and
audiences that you can spread that across your head sales,
(12:47):
the more you can spread those things across, the better
your little blob has a chance of surviving against the
really big blobs that are headquartered in the Silicon Valley
have their non and all finance has run out of
Dublin and pay text precisely nowhere for the most part.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
In terms of media companies like this merging, what does
it mean for creatives? I did see that Sky TV
CEO say that they are interested in more local content,
and that's obviously something that they've heard from all the
comments and stuff regarding Netflix taking our dime and like
you know, the people have been saying Netflix should say,
pay a tax so we can create more New Zealand content,
(13:29):
And that really stuck out to me from listening to
her about that.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Do you believe that it will lead to that?
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Well, I think if you think about content in a
very broad sense, Sky probably makes more local content than
anyone else because of the amount of sport that producers,
and then there's all the wrap around sports shows. We
don't tend to think about that, and the production sector,
which is where a lot of that sort of the
(13:55):
drums beating around Netflix's commissioning locally comes from. They don't
typically think about sports, but Sky screens and producers and
has hard working people go all over the country to
bring you NPC and and all kinds of different sports properties.
They also, you know, through New Zealand on air and
(14:18):
you know, through some commercial partners at ships make some
local content as well, but not nearly so much as
you know, the likes of TVNZ for example, Three has
massively pulled back from that itself. You know, it used
to have multiple news bulletins. Now it just has the one.
It doesn't make it itself. Stuff manufactures that for them,
(14:40):
So they have basically trenched to the point where they
said the only local content will make will either be
funded by new zeand on air or be commercially funded.
Whether that remains the case for the combined Sky three business,
I do think that's an open question. If you look
at you know, the battle of the big blobs again,
(15:02):
what's a differentiator for our local blobs? It is where
they are, it's and they can't go anywhere else. You know,
the likes of Sky and TV and Z are in
and of this country. And how do you signal that,
and how do you do you differentiate yourself and the
likes of you know, Disney Plus, Amazon, Prime Netflix. It
is actually with your local content. So that's the sort
(15:24):
of the upside too, and the argument for them them
commissioning more local shows in future.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
The three brand has always been seen as a bit
of a renegade. Hey, up against the corporate and very
serious TV Z. That's where you get serious things. And
when TV three, especially i'm thinking three News, came into
the play, it was much more fun. It was a bit,
you know, a bit out there. My producer actually told
(15:52):
me about this iconic footage of Blenda Todd taking the
Grim Reaper through the office when the network was in
its infancy.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It's the same reception that's been here since the beginning.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You've come about the jobs.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
The same reception that hosted host Belinda Todd along with
the Grim Reaper when TV three went into receivership.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
I'm too groad, Angy Morgan.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
You can have me for one thousand dollars a week,
plus all the land that was taken from my tribe.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
The receiver th on was just a month after Nightline launched.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We're just running with scissors with a hair on fire,
and no one expected anything of it, so.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
We did what we liked.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
And there have been so many owners over the years,
so much change at three. Do you think this deal
is going to bring some long term stability, not only
two three, but perhaps the wide media landscape.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah, I mean, I think that that renegade spirit of
three was very deliberately cultivated. It was a classic challenger
brand and and it hired personalities who had a particular
sense of fun and playfulness, and it was just so
well executed against that over its sort of first twenty
(17:11):
years or so, to the point where if you look
at some of the biggest names on TV and Z,
you know, the likes of Hillary Barry and John Campbell,
they were three lifers before they eventually made their way
across there. Not that they wanted to be a development
house for talent, but that's just sort of it shows
just how admired they were at that capacity. In terms
(17:35):
of how three has lived its whole life. It has
had huge amounts of debt, it's had reluctant owners, it's
had bankruptcies, and it's just kept on trucking. You know,
that's their understanding of the world is that way up there,
something weird's always happening, and you just got to do
(17:57):
your job, and so, you know, there was My understanding
is that TVNZ went and camped outside Flower Street, which
is only going to be their home for a matter
of a few days I think for three to sort
of get their reaction to this, and I'm like, you
should know that this is the most normal thing that's
(18:18):
happened to three from an ownership perspective, in probably its
entire existence, and so it will have I would have thought,
no impact on them, kind of emotionally, but equally if
you sort of step back a bit, it's obviously a
great day for them. You know, I think when you're
(18:39):
owned by a giant multinational, and especially when you're off
to the side of what their core business is, you know,
you should never really count your chickens. But when you're
owned by a publicly listed New Zealand media company, you're
part of the furniture that you're a really important asset
to them. And I think that for three Star, you know,
(19:04):
those who are left, you know, a lot of them
have gone by the wayside in recent years, but those
who are still there, who especially those have got a
kind of connection back to previous eras this this should
be an amazing moment for them because they're finally at
a place where they're sort of seen and valued and
have reason to believe that they can grow and prosper
(19:27):
and evolve. In a way that has been really hard
to imagine. For a lot of the last sort of
probably ten to fifteen years.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
In the past, TV and Z has poached some of
three's biggest hits. I've been told Home and Away is
probably the biggest, that was the lead in show for
the six PM news for a long time there. And
you've also seen they announce the other week that Graham
Norton is moving over to TV and Z. They even
took Broken Wood Mysteries from Sky did TV and zed.
(19:55):
So is this stronger media company perhaps going to put
up a lo a bit more of a fight.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Yeah, it's interesting some of those shows that you listed
weren't necessarily poached from three so much as Three either
deliberately or unintentionally botched the negotiation on them, and they
were real losses. You know, some of those, particularly Home
and Away were real tent poles of how they set
(20:24):
up their evening. And you know, also give TVNZ credit,
they knew how to behave in a competitive environment like
a really strong competitor. They still will be in this situation.
I think it's less about Three defending what it has
and it still has a lot, you know, David Lomas
is still a very beloved property for them. Meretithist Side
(20:46):
Australia regularly tops the ratings. Basically, comedy and reality TV
as locally made genres were largely driven stratgically buy three,
and while particularly the comedy side and some of the
(21:06):
reality side TVNS has picked up on it, they were
definitely fast followers rather than originators of that. And so yeah,
this absolutely a more robust company to sort of defend
what three has. But I think what's more instructive and
interesting about the dealer is if you just look at
the vast library that Sky has, truly it's one of
(21:29):
the best in the world. It might be the best
in the world just because we're a sort of small
market with less BATV operators across sports, across entertainment. What
it can do in terms of putting some of that,
a sampling of that on three and then using that
as the top of the funnel to say, if you
like that, there's a whole lot more where that came
(21:50):
from across s guy's properties, and then advertising that there
Once that it's all properly put together, strategically understood and executed,
that should be a pretty formidable machine for them sitting
aside the whole advertising piece of it, which is the
obvious stated justification too.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Thanks for joining us, Duncan.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Thank you so much for having me. I could talk
about this all day.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enziherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(22:39):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com